Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala, 92 Ohio St.3d 107, 2001-Ohio-161.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. VALA.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 107.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Past disciplinary
violations and repeated neglect of professional duties.
(No. 00-2285 -- Submitted February 7, 2001 -- Decided June 13, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-62.
__________________

Per Curiam. On January 25, 2000, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar
Association, filed a ten-count amended complaint charging respondent, Joseph S.
Vala of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038112, with violating
numerous rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. When respondent
failed to answer, relator moved for default, and the matter was referred by the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board") to Master Commissioner Harry W. White.

Based upon the motion for default and attached affidavits, the master
commissioner found that in October 1996, Ruth Burgardt retained respondent to
represent her with respect to injuries she sustained in an automobile accident.
Although respondent filed the case in January 1997, he later voluntarily dismissed
it under Civ.R. 41(A)(1) without Burgardt's consent. Respondent refiled the case
in November 1998, but he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss that was based
upon the expiration of the statute of limitations. Respondent did not inform
Burgardt that her case on motion had been dismissed with prejudice; instead, he
told her that the case was scheduled for a status hearing. After Burgardt
discovered the dismissal, she sued respondent for malpractice and obtained a

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
judgment of $25,000. Respondent, who was and is without malpractice
insurance, failed to pay the award.

The master commissioner concluded that respondent's conduct violated
DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall
not engage in conduct reflecting adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law),
6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (a
lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to a client).

In April 1999, Giovanna Tavano engaged respondent and paid him $200
to represent her in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Respondent
failed to file an answer on behalf of Tavano or provide any professional services
for her, and the bankruptcy court entered judgment against Tavano in the amount
of $7,187.18. The master commissioner concluded that respondent's conduct
toward Tavano violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(3) (when
requested, a lawyer shall promptly refund any part of an unearned fee paid in
advance), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3).

In November 1998, John Moravec hired respondent to represent him in a
domestic relations action. Respondent not only failed to notify Moravec of a
contested hearing to be held in December 1999 but failed to attend the hearing
himself. When Moravec learned of respondent's failure to appear, he demanded
the return of his papers and the retainer he had paid. Respondent returned neither.
The master commissioner concluded that respondent's conduct toward Moravec
violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(2) (when requested, a lawyer
shall promptly deliver all papers and property to which a client is entitled), 2-
110(A)(3), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3).
2

January Term, 2001

The master commissioner noted that respondent had previously been the
subject of disciplinary action in Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d
57, 693 N.E.2d 1083, and Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d
1401, 716 N.E.2d 1164. In view of respondent's past disciplinary violations and
his constant and repeated neglect of his professional duties, the master
commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of
law.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
master commissioner.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.
Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Howard Mishkind, Robert Steely and Thomas E. Kocovsky, Jr., for relator.
__________________
3